Breaking: Armor-Makers "Risked Soldiers' Lives," Says Pentagon I.G. (Updated)

A report from the Pentagon's Inspector General, obtained by DANGER ROOM, is accusing the Marine Corps, the Army, and suppliers of armored vehicles of contractual wrongdoings which "increased risk to the lives of soldiers."

The Marine Corps Systems Command "continued to award contracts for armored vehicles" to one firm, Force Protection, Inc., "even though [the company] did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting vehicles to the theater," the report says.

Another contract, handed out by the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to a subsidiary of Armor Holdings, Inc. may have been even more harmful. The Army "did not receive all of the crew protection kits in accordance with the contractual delivery schedule. Furthermore, the increased crew protection kit installation time, the additional reinspection of kits in theater, and the late deliveries all resulted in increased risk to the lives of soldiers."

One of the themes that the report highlights is the resistance of officials to pursue competition, even when it was evident that other options were out there. This comes up, for example, with Force Protection's Cougar MRAP vehicle:

[The MCSC] plan called for competition, testing to meet the mine and ballistic requirements, and options to procure production units. It became clear that the requirements for mine and ballistic protection are not clearly understood by the JRAC. There was discussion about sole sourcing to the manufacturer of Cougar. We indicated there are several vendors with similar capability and we should run a competition to include ballistic and mine testing to validate their capabilities. There was great resistance to competing and doing anything other than buying what currently exists, and accepting the marketed capabilities of [that] system….The JRAC discussed their ability to procure up to $100M of urgent and compelling equipment but that would require a sole source, not a competitive procurement, to justify its use.

Marine Corps Systems Command officials may have wanted to consider competition but, the report notes, the "Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Integrated Process Team selected the sole-source option."

The IG report was done at the request of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY).

Also:

* Manufacturers Can't Fill Bomb-Proof Vehicle Demand>
* Which RIde Takes Bomb-Blasts Best?
* Military Dragged Feet on Bomb-Proof Vehicles
* Bomb-Proof Vehicles: Why the Delay?
* Army Junking Future for New Rides?
* Iraq's Tricked-Out Armored Cars
* Shortages for New Armored Vehicles?
* Armored Vehicle Demand Blows Up
* Marines 300, Bombers 0
* 4,100 More Armored Rides